>"If your story wanders around and you're totally emotionally
>removed from what's occuring, then it's gonna be boring, it's
>gonna be uninteresting, and it's gonna suck"
>
>Assassination of Jesse James, There Will Be Blood, your
>beloved The Savages, hell, even No Country for Old Men could
>be described like that to a certain extent. The issue isn't
>the story; it's the characters.
>
>The foundation of "Eyes Wide Shut" was the characters. The
>main conflict was an internal struggle and it was basically a
>character piece with a loose mystery built-in. Once people
>didn't care about the main character, thus not caring for his
>struggle/conflict, the focus moved to the mystery which
>supposed to bear the weight of the film. Add in the very slow
>pacing and you have a film that is going to miss the mark with
>most of the audience.
>

The problem is Kubrick's style kept me from getting invested in the character in any way. I was totally hanging on every move that the characters in the films you named made. Maybe it's more than story... maybe it's the perfect storm of a meandering story, characters we didn't care about, and Kubrick's totally detached style.

>Personally, I thought "Eyes Wide Shut" was an intriguing
>failure but to say the problem is just the story seems wrong.
>I think you could remake the film using almost the exact same
>story and come away with a quality film. (Ditto for AI)

Perhaps. It'd need a new script and a new director to execute said script.

There were additional problems with the film. But it begins with story. And the main point I wanted to make is I believe Kubrick often gets the pass since his films are well-shot and have a distinct mood. But that's simply not enough.